free counter with statistics Stardust | Pajiba - Scathing Reviews for Bitchy People

stardust1.jpg

That Moonglow Gave Me You

Stardust / Daniel Carlson

Film Reviews | August 10, 2007 | Comments (81)


There’s a reason that comic books, or at any rate the comic book culture, shares such an emotional overlap with more straightforward fantasy epics that tend to involve kingdoms and witches and battles for the hand of a fair maiden. They both at heart revolve around outsiders who have been burdened with an extraordinary task and often imbued with some kind of power to get the job done, or at the very least receive some kind of supernatural assistance. If you plotted the relation between comics and fantasy on a Venn diagram — and I know half a dozen of you are doing that right now — you’d see an almost completely shared space in the middle, excepting things like Superman or dragons. So it makes sense that comic author Neil Gaiman’s fantasy-leaning novel Stardust would make for a great story, and an equally entertaining film in the hands of co-writer/director Matthew Vaughn. Stardust is filled with legitimate adventure, suspense, romance, humor, pathos, and enough self-awareness to make it a worthy successor to The Princess Bride, but on top of all that, the film absolutely nails the sense of individualism and personality that permeate the best stories, regardless of genre. It’s a film about growing up and making decisions and figuring out what it means to be a man, and it also happens to have Robert De Niro as a gay flying pirate. What more could you want?

The film begins 150 years ago in the English village of Wall, so named because it borders a long stone wall that serves as a kind of geographical and interdimensional boundary between the regular world and the Kingdom of Stormhold. A young man named Dunstan (Ben Barnes) dodges the guard and hops the wall one day and journeys into the adjacent village, where he meets up with Una (Kate Magowan), a princess who’s being kept as a slave girl by a witch known as Ditchwater Sal (Melanie Hill). Unable to escape the witch’s spell, the two still have a passionate night together, and nine months later a baby in a basket is left at the wall for Dunstan. That half-royal boy grows up to be Tristan (Charlie Cox), a naïve 18-year-old who grew up on our side of the wall with his father and knows nothing of his odd parentage, and who also has developed a blind, shapeless love that only the very young can create for Victoria (Sienna Miller), a girl in Tristan’s village who does nothing more to earn his admiration than be beautiful. That’s admittedly a lot of exposition to cover in just a few opening scenes, but Vaughn keeps the story moving quickly enough that these few characters are established enough that the film begins to stand firmly on its feet, if a little wobbly at first. The larger story doesn’t begin to unfold until Tristan attempts to woo Victoria one night as a shooting star falls from the sky and lands far on the forbidden side of the wall, and he declares he will fetch it for her as a sign of his devotion and to possibly persuade her to marry him.

But the star didn’t fall on its own. It was knocked out of the sky by the dying king of Stormhold (Peter O’Toole), who hurled his enchanted necklace into the sky and let it bring a star back down to earth, offering the necklace’s stone as a reward and promise of the throne to whichever of his greedy sons can find it first. The squabbling princes do their best to kill each other off, but Septimus (Mark Strong) and Primus (Jason Flemyng) take the lead on the race to reach the stone. Vaughn establishes the film’s running tone in the first sequence with the king and his sons, landing somewhere between period-piece melodrama and smirking self-awareness, and largely succeeds in blending the two. It’s somewhat of a hindrance to Vaughn that Stardust comes along so late in the game, well after everyone is familiar with what it means to deconstruct a fairy tale like Rob Reiner did with The Princess Bride; if anything, the unconventional choice would have been to sell the story straight, letting the humor rest solely on character interaction and not on the hinting subtext that the film is somehow aware of its genre trappings, and therefore willing to make jokes at the expense of what a viewer would typically expect. For instance, before the king dies, he asks one of his sons to walk to the castle window and survey the kingdom, at which point another son promptly kicks the first one out the window to his death. It’s done for a laugh, and to establish that Stardust intends to function both as high adventure and genre commentary, but Vaughn pulls it off.

So Tristan sets out and finds the falling star, who’s taken the form of a woman, Yvaine (Claire Danes), and is clearly not pleased to find herself ripped from the heavens and trudging around the woods. It’s another fresh turn that Yvaine isn’t any kind of damsel in distress, but is mainly pissed at Tristan when he doesn’t offer her any real help and instead basically kidnaps her, promising to help her find a way back to the sky if Yvaine travels home with him to be presented as a kind of prize to Victoria. The rest of the dense but enjoyable narrative charts their attempts to make it home, all the while avoiding the princes looking for the stone Yvaine is wearing around her neck, as well as steering clear of Lamia (Michelle Pfeiffer), a witch who wants to cut out Yvaine’s heart, which contains the magical elements of eternal life.

That journey home is a big one, and includes more than a few brushes with danger, as well as help from allies like Captain Shakespeare (De Niro), the aforementioned gay pirate who crews a flying galleon and provides some of the strangest and funniest scenes in the movie. But it’s Tristan and Yvaine’s burgeoning relationship that begins to drive the narrative, and the inevitable romance and suspense arising from it are no less suspenseful for being somewhat easy to spot. Being a star, Yvaine shines when she’s happy or at peace, and in certain scenes Danes is painted with soft light emanating from her face and head that’s downright beautiful, exploding forth in the kind of unabashed radiance that only makes its home in stories like this one, stories about and by and for outcasts, where no one has to worry about being too geeky or sentimental or fitting in.

It’s that fitting in that comes back to haunt Tristan throughout the film, as he begins to realize his love for Victoria was largely born of his desire simply to be regarded as something other than a poor boy who worked in a shop. Cox is charming and low-key in the role, and the chemistry with Danes is equally simple but believable. While Yvaine gradually softens over the film, Tristan undergoes the gentle transformation from bumbling, eager boy to a more confident hero, spurred to do something better with his life by Yvaine’s own question to him: “Why fight to be accepted by people you don’t actually want to be like?” It’s a question Gaiman and Vaughn have already answered, and to see their hero do the same is never less than compelling. There are many good moments in Stardust, and even a few great ones, but it’s the film’s willingness to carve its own path that makes it so watchable, and inviting, and even touching, as it throws cynicism aside. Stardust is entertaining and smart, but most of all kind, and completely unconcerned with changing itself if that means sacrificing one ounce of honesty or devotion.

Daniel Carlson is the managing editor of Pajiba and a low-level employee at a Hollywood industry magazine. You can visit his blog, Slowly Going Bald.


Rush Hour 3 | Californication



Comments

Oh thank the lawd. I love the book and virtually everything Neil Gaiman does, and after seeing a few trailers for this was not at all convinced it would be good.

Posted by: markus at August 10, 2007 8:02 PM

Oh Thank the Heavens! I have been looking forward to this movie for SUCH a long time. Gaiman is so fine in every form and while I live in fear of the Sandman comics hitting the silver screen in some revolting form or another, Stardust has been one of those sweet favorites of mine that was begging for a good visual treatment.

If this is as great as I think it'll be, MAYBE I'll start hoping for a Good Omens movie.

Posted by: lilianna28 at August 10, 2007 8:03 PM

It's a sad commentary on film adaptations to say that all I hoped for with Stardust was that it be halfway decent. I'm thrilled that you liked it and that it sounds like it's far more than just acceptable.

Posted by: telesilla at August 10, 2007 8:25 PM

Very happy this got a decent review. When I heard it was being made into a movie I had my doubts that they could pull it off well, but knew that I would see it anyway no matter what. Glad that I can see the movie and enjoy it rather than curse the devils who dared to taint Gaiman's work with a shitty movie.

Posted by: McGeek at August 10, 2007 8:47 PM

Well, I've been following what Neil's been saying. That is, that he thinks it's a really good movie that has had bizarre and sometimes off-putting marketing. So I took him at his word, when I kinda wasn't feeling like going out today. And oh! It was the sweetest movie I've seen since "Amelie". It's the kind of thing movie dates were invented for. But if you're a softie then a solo matinee will feel quite nice too.

Oh yeah, I found it also genuinely funny and just lovely to look at. And Kate Magowan is my new style English girlfriend.

Cleft chins, doncha know. Get me every time.

Posted by: Jay at August 10, 2007 9:08 PM

This screams Sunday afternoon matinee. Can't wait to go see it!

Posted by: twilly at August 10, 2007 9:31 PM

Wow!

I thought this movie looked like shit. The trailer looked like shit. It had alot of star power to look so shitty, and yet it looked shitty.

I am going to have to change my mind and actually go with the family to see it instead of making their dad go by himself.

Damn you Pajiba! I thought I was going to have a few hours to myself!

Posted by: wsapnin at August 10, 2007 9:54 PM

Just came home from seeing this movie and loved it. Very entertaining and beautiful to watch. Nice story element with great characters. De Niro as a closeted gay pirate was beyond priceless!

Posted by: Di at August 10, 2007 9:58 PM

oh thank god thank god. i read every review you guys write and always agree with you. and even though you give some movies a bad review I still go see them because I can't resist. but with this one i was praying it was good. i knew it would at least be acceptable because gaimen had a very large role as writer and producer on the movie and he wouldn't let the story be too corrupted but I'm THRILLED to learn that it's keeping it's wonderful sense of fantasy and morality. I'm more excited than ever to see this movie. thank you thank you thank you.

Posted by: SashaCA2 at August 10, 2007 9:58 PM

Just came home from seeing Stardust and it exceeded my expectations.
I just loved it.
Sweet and funny.
I'm so glad to see Neil's wonderful story was not screwed up.

Posted by: Jules at August 10, 2007 10:30 PM

I just got back from watching it, and I'd have to agree. It was very sweet, and funny, and I don't think I've ever seen De Niro enjoy himself more. Now I'm holding out for American Gods.

Posted by: Zuzu at August 10, 2007 10:56 PM

A review of warm sunshine, nice one Daniel.

..worthy successor to The Princess Bride..

And like ice cream in the warm sun, my little heart is happily melting. I've been patiently waiting twenty years for an equally good film to carry on the Bride tradition.

Posted by: Rebecca H. at August 10, 2007 10:57 PM

I was worried because the local papers didn't have such a "glowing" review. They gave it one measly star. But, of course, I wanted to wait and see what my friends at Pajiba had to say. I feel better about wanting to see the movie now!

Posted by: Cait at August 10, 2007 11:18 PM

Oh man it's not out here till September 20. I like the sound of this one...

Posted by: rach at August 10, 2007 11:39 PM

You had me at
..worthy successor to The Princess Bride..
as you wiiiiiish!

Posted by: Louise at August 10, 2007 11:43 PM

Neil Gaiman fans from all over the world are sighing with relief (and I'm betting that includes several pajibans, including this one right here).

Posted by: pj at August 11, 2007 1:43 AM

Well this is certainly heartening. The trailers left me so unimpressed that I was planning to bypass Stardust's theater run entirely. But looks like I'll give it a shot after all, which is great because I loved the book. I was crushed when the trailers turned out to be underwhelming.

Posted by: adamae at August 11, 2007 2:05 AM

I'm sorry. No matter what you say,this movie just looks plain ridiculous.

Posted by: Brianne at August 11, 2007 2:27 AM

I'm another huge fan of Gaiman's book, so when I saw this movie was coming out, I was trembling with excitement. Actually, it was a little worse than that. I alarmed my husband when I stood up whooping when the trailer came on TV. So glad it looks enjoyable. I was worried when I saw some big names associated with it.

Posted by: Lainie at August 11, 2007 8:06 AM

Hmmmmm, not even Michelle Pfeiffer's presence is enough of an incentive to get me to actually PAY hard earned money to see something with Claire Danes in it.

Posted by: BarbadoSlim at August 11, 2007 8:36 AM

You know, I was going to go on the strength of my love for Michelle Pfeiffer and Neil Gaiman alone. But to hear that it's a worthy successor to The Princess Bride? I might just be tweaking a little now.
Thanks for the review!

Posted by: Anne at August 11, 2007 8:48 AM

Way to keep an open mind, Brianne.

I also have reservations about Claire Danes, but I'm telling myself that the overwhelming talent around her will either make me accept her performance, or magically improve her skills. Either way, I'm seeing this one.

Posted by: TK at August 11, 2007 9:58 AM

BarbadoSlim: You really have some animosity toward certain actors. You've stated on a previous thread you refuse to watch "Weeds" because they cast one of the Olsen girls. Now you refuse to watch "Stardust" because of Claire Danes. Did these people personally injure you in some way or are you just reacting to their tabloid personas?

Posted by: Tyler at August 11, 2007 10:31 AM

No nothing personal, I happen to think they are mediocre and undeserving and I will NOT promote anything they do with MY money. Neither will I enrich ANYONE who hires them, again because it's with MY money.

Posted by: BarbadoSlim at August 11, 2007 10:41 AM

Did they honestly change his name from Tristran to Tristan?

Posted by: serena at August 11, 2007 10:51 AM

I guess they did, or maybe the second "r" is silent in the way it is pronounced in the movie. I saw this last night and was a bit underwhelmed. I missed the little hairy man from the book that was so helpful to Trist(r)an and the descriptions of the market that took place every seven years. I also did not like Victoria being a fickle snot. I much prefer many of the characters from the book that seemed more gray than the black and white/good or bad ones in the movie. I kind of wish that I had seen the movie before I read the book, so that I would be able to enjoy them on their own.

Posted by: lickoriche at August 11, 2007 12:50 PM

I might be going to see this alone now, but this review still makes me happy to do it.

Posted by: Anne (in Reno) at August 11, 2007 12:59 PM

TK-My mind is closed because I think this looks like a silly movie? Then you go on in the next sentence to talk about your bias against Claire Danes? Come on now. I'm entitled to my opinion along with everyone else on here who thought the same thing then just happened to change their minds because Daniel gave it a good review.

Posted by: Brianne at August 11, 2007 1:45 PM

Brianne: Nobody said you weren't entitled to your opinion. But see it from another perspective. TK was willing to give it a shot despite his misgivings, just like those whose changed their minds. You, on the other hand, pretty much took the opposite stance that he made in his statement about Danes. You make it quite clear that your choice was made, regardless of the review or anyone else's recommendations. That does seem a bit inflexible, don't you think?

If it isn't your cup of tea, that's fine. But could you put it that way, instead of blatantly declaring that the review doesn't matter?

Posted by: Vermillion at August 11, 2007 2:18 PM

DeNiro playing a gay pirate named Shakespeare?
I have to see this... Haha

Posted by: Shaun at August 11, 2007 2:48 PM

I saw this yesterday afternoon with two of my younger sisters and I was so incredibly surprised! And pleasantly of course! Once Tristan wandered into Stormhold I was hooked. It did start out a little slow but I smiled when the character smiled, I cried when they cried. I didn't even let it sink in that it was Claire Danes, since I loathe her. Basically, I enjoyed every minute of it. Especially when Tristian comes into his own and Humphrey just looks like a big idiot. Loved it! And great review!!

Posted by: kash at August 11, 2007 2:48 PM

I found this to be better then I expected but not as good as I had hoped. There were some parts that REALLY dragged, but there were parts that were very good. I didn't see an over use of special effects masturbation, nor a large amount of "let's modernize everything!!!" (However, I screamed when I saw the trailer for "the seeker." My friend looked at me funny as I cried for the bastardization of The Dark is Rising series)

For fantasy movies (and the books that inspire them), I thought this was a good step in the right direction. I would have liked more, but I felt they kept the theme of the book intact, even though a lot of things were simplified. Now, if only the rest of Hollywood would figure this out, instead of giving us the latest Harry Potter piece of crap.

Posted by: Rowen at August 11, 2007 3:01 PM

i went in with really low expectations, knwoing that capturing gaiman's book would be hard for anybody.

still, i was left a bit dissapointed. granted, michell pieffer and De niro were good choices, but CLAIR DANES? why?
she is such a horrible actress, and she did not embody the character hey wy id hoped.

also it seemed that themovie took out all of Gaiman's humor in favor of a romantc plot.

overall it wasnt bad, but i was very dissapointed, when really did not want to be.

also, Beowolf is coming out too, dare i say this is two gaiman failures in one month? (while i dont hold i dont hol him responsible for either)

i just hope they never attempt to make Good Omens with Cloony as Crawly.

Posted by: sara at August 11, 2007 3:16 PM

Yo, Vermillion, TK, cut Brianne some slack. Man, when did this site turn into a forum for "open-minded" people? Read the tagline again, folks. It's scathing reviews for bitchy people. Please show me more of the inner bitch.

Besides, it does look stupid. The review is almost convincing me to overlook that fact and go see it. But not enough.

Posted by: rocky at August 11, 2007 4:58 PM

"If you plotted the relation between comics and fantasy on a Venn diagram -- and I know half a dozen of you are doing that right now -- " ...hee, hee!!!

Posted by: bebemiqui at August 11, 2007 5:25 PM

Yippee! I loved it.

My only beef was that they severely trumped up the climax ending to make it more "Hollywood." The reason why the ending was good in the book is that it was unconventional, in that it was anticlimactic. Meh, you can't win em all.

My favorite part was the brothers. Also my favorite part in the book. Yay! :)

Posted by: CDell at August 11, 2007 6:13 PM

Also, about the name thing, I think changing his name to Tristan was a good idea. When reading the book, I never knew how to properly pronounce Tristran in my head.

Posted by: CDell at August 11, 2007 6:14 PM

I saw Stardust a few hours ago and I'm still on cloud nine. No De Niro yet though...

Posted by: Constance at August 11, 2007 7:56 PM

So they changed the character's name to Tristan from Tristran? I thought it was a typo until the rest of you mentioned it. Actually, I've been in love with the name Tristan ever since All Creatures Great and Small. I agree, it's easier to pronounce as Tristan.

I enjoyed Michelle "it takes me 5 hours of makeup to make me look ugly" Pfeiffer in Hairspray as a witch, so I'm looking forward to seeing her as one here, too.

And Robert De Niro as a cross dressing pirate? What's with all the swishy pirates these last few years?

Anyway, to those of you who are boycotting the movie based on Claire Danes being in it, I watched Hairspray and loved it, and I hate John Travolta movies (and I thought he was awful in it). Still, I smiled and laughed through the entire movie anyway. Now if Adam Sandler was in it, forget it.

Posted by: BWeaves at August 11, 2007 7:57 PM

I saw this by myself this afternoon, and while I enjoyed it, it wasn't as great as I hoped. I can't quite place what I felt was missing, but something was. De Niro was great, I enjoyed his character immensely...and I don't normally love Claire Danes, but she was great in this role, and Daniel's right about the glowing - it was lovely. I'll definitely watch it again when it's out on DVD...

Posted by: Kolby at August 11, 2007 8:48 PM

You forgot the awesome ghostly brothers! They were my favorite part.

Posted by: Ruby at August 11, 2007 9:32 PM

I can't wait to see this, even though Stardust wouldn't have been my first choice of gaiman stuff on the big screen (Neverwhere again, with proper effects, or Sandman, I dare say).
Some of you are kind of harsh! You think Clare Danes is a good enough reason not to see the movie. Its your loss in the end, so just enjoy the rest of the movie.
And, don't kill me, but I find that Clooney is a great actor! O brother, where art though...? lllove him.

Posted by: brigitta at August 11, 2007 9:42 PM

Neil Gaiman. Meh with a double topping of meh.

Posted by: eroslane at August 12, 2007 1:13 AM

Okay so I just got back from watching this film and I can honestly say I was so surprised at how much I enjoyed it. It was a big surprise this summer and I am so glad that I decided to watch it instead of skipping the movie (at first I had no interest). Love love loved it!

Posted by: Dainty T at August 12, 2007 2:02 AM

Just got back from seeing it and "Stardust" is spectacular. It is abhorrent that "Stardust" is tanking while garbage like "Rush Hour" (yes, "Rush Hour" is garbage. Average=worthless) is wiping the floor with the competition. I'd love to see "Stardust" gain momentum but I have a feeling that like "Eternal Sunshine" and "Serenity" it will fade from theaters but become a juggernaut cult hit at home.

Posted by: Tyler at August 12, 2007 4:56 PM

Squeeeeeeeeeeeeeee :) I loved it. Not that I doubted I would, since I obsessively read Gaiman's blog, and since he was quite pleased with it I figured it was safe. It isn't the book, but there's no way it could have been. Is is, however, a thoroughly delightful movie. To those out there who think it looks awful based on the previews - they aren't representative of the movie at all (as Gaiman's been saying for months, which is why I didn't let them bother me). You really should give it a shot if you're judging it based on that. And why has no one mentioned the goat man? That bit of physical comedy had me howling.

Posted by: s. pisaster at August 12, 2007 7:21 PM

"Billy" was played by the same actor who plays Arthur Weasley in the Harry Potter films...every time he was onscreen I kept thinking of that. He was great, though, with his little "meeeehhhhhs."

Posted by: Kolby at August 12, 2007 7:54 PM

I like Danes. I thought she was great in Little Women and Evening (although the rest of the movie sucked), and she was quite lovely as Juliet in Baz Luhrmann's overwrought adaptation. Not to mention Brokedown Palace (I know, I know). And she was luminous (both literally and otherwise) in Stardust. I totally bought her in the role. I may be wrong, but do people "loathe" her because she had an affair with Billy Crudup? Because apart from that she's stayed pretty much out of the tabloids and I don't think her acting's that bad - and she certainly hasn't been overexposed.

I just think it's kind of dumb (and self-righteous) to judge someone based on ONE incident that happened a long time ago, when she was very young, without having full knowledge of the circumstances involved (do you really believe everything you read?). Not to mention boycotting her movies because of it (not that I'm saying anyone here does that, but I know people who do). And it seems she cops a lot more hate than Crudup, who I think was much more culpable, being the older one, and not being single and all that.

And what happened to human fallibility, you know - "no-one's perfect" and all that? I'm surprised at the number of self-confessed liberals who love to moralise about such matters.

Posted by: L2 at August 12, 2007 10:00 PM

I saw Stardust this Friday and I had a grin on my face from start to finish. I agree with Tyler, above, that it is sad that an intelligent, well-executed film like this one tanks while the shrill Rush Hour hits the payload. Best hope is to see it get a second life via DVD sales and cable movie channel repeats. So much talent, from production to actors!

Posted by: fatpat at August 12, 2007 10:07 PM

In my case I don't care for her personal life in the least. But I have heard she's a home wrecking whore, but, to each their own, right.

I do care when I have to see her horrid "acting" in anything I might want to see. I don't like ANYTHING she has ever done, and she's the WORST part of anything she's in. In my opinion.

Posted by: BarbadoSlim at August 12, 2007 10:11 PM

I remember Billy being younger in the book but I love to see Arthur Weasley in more stuff than just HP. So yay for excellent casting. Still excited to see this.

Posted by: Anne (in Reno) at August 12, 2007 11:32 PM

Tristran = Lovechild .... Trist/ran

"Trist" sounds the same as "tryst" (Copy/Paste Webster Online I Love You)

"tryst"- Pronunciation: 'trist, especially British 'trIst Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English triste appointed station for hunters, probably from trist, trust confidence, trust
1 : an agreement (as between lovers) to meet
2 : an appointed meeting or meeting place

"ran"- Past of "run" (Ok you know the definition of run)

Much is in a name

Thank you Pajiba for all your wonderfullness.

Posted by: Jennifer at August 13, 2007 3:24 AM

I saw this last night and I can't quite agree with this review. True, it was better than I expected it to be, but there were definitely some things that could have used work. I snorted at Una's one-line intro: "I'm a princess tricked into being a slave by a witch!" Danes' "I love you" scene in the trailer had me cringing.

It also had its moments. Basically anything with De Niro and the pirates was hilarious, and Tristan was dorky and loveable.

A successor to The Princess Bride it is not, but it is a decent film that's good for a few awwws and a few laughs.

Posted by: Diane at August 13, 2007 5:49 AM

I was surprised that I loved this movie so much. I only went because I love Claire Danes, but it was so pleasant to watch that I saw it twice this weekend.
Charlie Cox is perfect in this - he seems natural and never strains to be too charming or cloying. And Michelle Pfeiffer is wonderful, too.
I'm glad people are responding so well to this so far. Thanks for a good review.

Posted by: Jesse at August 13, 2007 11:52 AM

I so detest Claire Danes, both because she is a terrible actress and because she's someone who's willing to take part in the breakup of a long-term relationship between a man and his 8-MONTH PREGNANT girlfriend. But this is exactly the type of movie that I love, with the Princess Bride being one of my favorite movies of all time. So it looks like I'm going to have to suck it up and try not to throw tomatoes at the screen whenever she shows her bony face.

Posted by: boobaloob at August 13, 2007 12:13 PM

I loved this movie. Hurrah! That's all I have to say.

Posted by: LOLO at August 13, 2007 12:33 PM

One can't help but wonder - do those of you whose disdain for Danes extends to her personal life also boycott Billy Crudup films? Mastercard commercials?

Just curious to know if the door swings both ways. He was the one who cheated, remember? If it wasn't with her, it would have been someone else. So I hope you've burned your copies of Almost Famous. And that you'll be skipping Watchmen.

Posted by: TK at August 13, 2007 12:45 PM

Rowen - Yeah, I'm torn between wanting to be excited for "The Seeker" (the moment the Black Rider gallops up next to Will - OK, I admit it, I got chills all up and down my arms) and pure, abject terror that it'll be an unrecognizable bastardization of the book. I'm crossing my fingers and being cautiously optimistic, though - I was similarly worried before seeing "Stardust" and "Bridge to Terabithia". So, God, if you're listening...

Anyway back on topic! Saw this yesterday and was pleasantly surprised - and very, very impressed by the writing. I love the book but I felt there was a certain "Deus ex machina" quality to the ending. The screenplay manages to hint and foreshadow beautifully; and while I found the climactic battle overly long and, um, climactic I guess, it kinda worked... Also, the fight between Tristan and Septimus's reanimated body? Some of the best fight choreography I've seen in, I think, ever. Anyone know who was responsible for that? Because day-umn. Would it be inappropriate for me to track him (her?) down and send him flowers or something?

Oh, brigitta: Yes, yes, Neverwhere, yes!

And TK: thanks! Not to turn this into a gossip board or anything, but yeah. Let's not pretend that a cheating man is some sort of slave to his hormonal impulses, lured away from the hearth by an irresistible temptress. Two to tango. /rant

Posted by: alanna at August 13, 2007 1:39 PM

Just curious to know if the door swings both ways. He was the one who cheated, remember? If it wasn't with her, it would have been someone else. So I hope you've burned your copies of Almost Famous. And that you'll be skipping Watchmen.

Posted by: TK at August 13, 2007 12:45 PM
***************************************************

For the life of me I can't recall who Bill Crudup is.

*shrugs*

Posted by: BarbadoSlim at August 13, 2007 1:57 PM

As a huge Gaiman freak, I loved the movie. Judging from the previews alone, I went into the movie thinking that they wouldn't have captured the humor in Gaiman's writing, but I was completely wrong in that regard. The plot greatly deviated from the book at several points, but I could deal with that too. There's just one thing that bothered me - VERY SLIGHT SPOILER AHEAD - did anyone else realize that Victoria and Humphrey were randomly in Stormhold at the end, with no explanation as to how they got there/what they were doing?

Posted by: Stephanie at August 13, 2007 2:05 PM

Barbado - Lead singer of Stillwater in Almost Famous? Voice of the Mastercard commercials? Played Prefontaine in the biopic? The traitor/bad guy in Mission Impossible 3? The son in Big Fish? Soon to be Doctor Manhattan?

ACK! Sorry, he's a fave of mine.

Posted by: TK at August 13, 2007 2:10 PM

TK, I hold nothing against either Danes or Crudup as far as their relationship is concerend. I just think he was a dumbass for leaving MLP, but I would think anyone who did that would be a dumbass. I can't say whether or not I enjoy his acting, but I try not to let my opinions of dumbassery intrude on my opinions on acting ability.

Posted by: Vermillion at August 13, 2007 7:07 PM

I loved many elements of this movie (the ghost princes, the Septimus-Tristan fight scene), but it was missing something for me. Or maybe it was just a little too full of movie cliches - the love confession speech, the loathing-turns-to-love, the misunderstanding. Eh.

Posted by: Kristin at August 13, 2007 8:50 PM

People get so worked up... Let's be honest: stuff an actress does in her personal life doesn't matter that much, does it? Sure it's reprehensible, but I'll not make myself holier than that and I wasn't involved in any way. Unless they're promoting Nazism or something that huge, let them be. Movies are about good stories and a nice, careful depiction by the director, the cast and whoever else.

That being said, the two major gripes about Stardust, IMHO, come from a terrible actress named Siena Miller (one of the most undeserving divas in history - not beautiful, not sexy, untalented, insipid, just plain bland) and the fact that everything Neil Gaiman has written after Sandman is just boring. I mean, it's the same story over and over: kid finds way to another world filled with fantasy stuff, always with a pretty obvious sort of parable going on. Same word: insipid.

The review was pretty nice, though, so maybe I'll catch this on TV in a year or so for the rest of the description (i.e., DeNiro's character, some Pfeiffer...).

Posted by: gargumma at August 13, 2007 9:14 PM

Vermillion, now THAT we can agree on (leaving MLP, that is.)

gargumma - kid finds way to another world filled with fantasy stuff, always with a pretty obvious sort of parable going on. Same word: insipid.

American Gods?
Anansi Boys?
Good Omens?

Have you actually read any of those?

Posted by: TK at August 13, 2007 10:30 PM

Well, maybe I should say better: he's done a lot of that stuff I mentioned, but it's not all exactly the same?

I'm willing to read Anansi Boys, TK. I'm curious about it, people have praised it. I've heard great things about American Gods as well, I'd sure like to give it a try, but it costs a fortune in Portuguese and so does Anansi Boys. I'm about to borrow AB from a friend who's just finishing it. Not sure if Good Omens was edited here, but I didn't hear about it.

Even so, and I may be too uninformed here, doesn't AB follow some variation of that too? Kids (grown kids, but a parent-child thing anyway) find out they're the descendants of some African god and then their world becomes a fantasy because of that, with a parable in the end...? Of course I just said I haven't read it, but I will, even if it goes down that line.

Sandman is one of my top 5 comics of all time. Then I started checking out Gaiman's other works and couldn't help but notice this annoying pattern. You have The Books of Magic; Gaiman's interpretation of Elric; MirrorMask; Neverwhere (a girl named Door who creates dimensional portals?); Coraline; Stardust, all not very well disguised variations of the same thing.

I really dislike it, so I've only been mildly curious about his more recent stuff, and mostly comics or things that end up in the same store.

Posted by: gargumma at August 13, 2007 11:42 PM

"Lead singer of Stillwater in Almost Famous?"

Woah, TK you just made me sad. For he is the guitarist with mystique. Your suggestion of burning copies of Almost Famous and Skipping Watchmen made me almost break out in Hives by the way, to horrifying a prospect to even think about.

I'm yet another Gaiman freak (you touch my autographed copy of Good Omens and I kill you) so I was terrified that this was going to be awful. Literally shaking. I am ludicrously glad that the Pajiba verdict was a good one.

Now I just have to get over the fact that it isn't due for release here until October the sodding 19th. Guess I'll just have to re-read the book in the mean time, from reading the review it looks like there was a lot that I've forgotten, I haven't read it in years.

Posted by: Alex the Odd at August 14, 2007 5:21 AM

gargumma, Siena Miller is hardly in the film. I don't even think she's in the movie 20 minutes total. Saying she's in it more than 10 minutes even seems kind.

Posted by: mb at August 14, 2007 7:22 AM

Being one of the people who mentioned disliking Danes partly due to the whole Crudup/MLP thing, I do hold Crudup accountable as well; it certainly does take two to tango. And yeah, I now avoid his shit like the plague as well. Crap, I had no idea he's going to be in The Watchmen; I'm going to have to keep myself from throwing tomatoes then too.

Posted by: boobaloob at August 14, 2007 9:30 AM

Saw Stardust last night. I enjoyed it, but it seemed to be missing something, LIKE HALF THE BOOK. I could understand in huge books like LOTR or Harry Potter that they have to cut out loads of plot to fit the story into 2 or 3 hours, but Stardust was a thin graphic novel.

Anyway, judging the movie on it's own merits, it still was missing something. I saw it with darling hubby, who hadn't read the book, and he didn't understand that the dewdrop was glass, or what the Babylon candle was, or why the unicorn came to help, and Tristan's hand being burned in the fire was barely shown and then discarded.

There also seemed to be continuity problems with Michelle Pfeiffer's character. In the same scene she was ugly and accidentally pulled half her hair out, then had hair and was pretty, then back to ugly again.

I missed all the intrigues and twists of the princes trying to outwit each other. The movie was just chase, chase, chase.

Pros: Robert DeNiro was hilarious as the swishy pirate. Mr. Weasley was great as the goat man who couldn't quite pull off being human, and Ricky Gervais was himself but dead on as Ferdy the Fence.

I'm just dissapointed, because this could have been so much better. Still, I'm going to go see it again.

Posted by: BWeaves at August 14, 2007 9:47 AM

thank goodness - i held my breath when i opened this review...
i've been looking forward to this film for sooooo long!

Posted by: helen at August 14, 2007 10:59 AM

I went to the early screening of Stardust at Comic-con, so Gaiman explained that the Tristran to Tristan situation was because of a typo that they had already copied a bajillion times before realizing it was wrong. But by then it was too late.

If I didn't love Neil Gaiman so much, I would readily pointed out the flaws in this movie, and yes I do realize that every time I watch this movie, it is definitely not objectively.

It is because each time I watch Stardust, I'm reminded of the first time I watched it at Comic-con and Neil Gaiman stumbling down after the movie amidst loud clapping and saying in a very quiet, shuttered, fragile voice, "oh good, you liked it". The fact that this movie was like his baby was so palatable, that reading bad reviews now only makes me empathize even more.

I only hope he doesn't read reviews for Beowulf as avidly as he did for Stardust because I have a feeling Beowulf isn't going to do very well.

Posted by: Vi at August 14, 2007 1:30 PM

I bet that The Golden Compass will be much, much better - can't wait!!!!!

Posted by: SCG at August 14, 2007 2:06 PM

I saw this over the weekend purely on your advice and fell completely head over heels for it.

But having said that, why aren't we more outraged by the same damn tired-old gay stereotypes? Gays and transvestites are the same thing. HAAAA HAAAA. Gays love to act butch and date Sienna Miller, while secretly winking and banging around with gay pirates. HAAA HAAAA!

And I know I'm alone on this last one, but I'll say it anyway. Fuck De Niro. Overacting is not a sign of genius.

Posted by: Scott at August 14, 2007 2:40 PM

mb: thanks, that actually helps matters, considering the good evaluation from Pajiba and all.

scott: you're not entirely alone. De Niro can do it nice when he wants to, but it's rare these days that he wants to. Mostly, he's been doing the same character over and over and sometimes, yes, he just overacts, I believe, for the sake of his own notion of comedy. Turns out sad.

Posted by: gargumma at August 14, 2007 7:55 PM

i, for one, cannot believe people are refusing to watch a movie (which was wonderful, by the way, and i'm going to see it again tonight) based on a neil gaiman novel because it "looks stupid." of course it does--it's an incredibly self-aware fantasy movie being marketed by hollywood. can you imagine what the trailers for the princess bride would be like if it had come out this year? seriously, i hope you guys have fun watching rush hour four when it comes out.

Posted by: jess at August 16, 2007 3:30 PM

I was thrilled with Claire Danes in this. Her English accent was fabulous. If you've seen Les Mis and your eardrums bled with her accent there, you'll understand.

I've always liked her and her work. I would run away from an 8-month pregnant woman for Claire any day of the week.

Posted by: Razorburn at August 16, 2007 6:33 PM

I finally saw it and just left in a good mood. Ok De Niro is over the top but his crew totally makes up for it. And if they ending was a little bit Deus Ex Machina-ey they did have to rewrite it for Hollywood and I didn't think they did a bad job at all. I won't see or not see a movie based on the actors in it (unless it's someone like Dane Cook, but I digress, he's not really an actor anyways) but I get annoyed when people take against a movie for what one of the actors did in their personal life in the past. I just don't care, as long as they can act. I read the novel version (NOT the graphic novel) and there was a lot they left out that was a bit disappointing so I was pleased to see it all come together so well in the end.

Posted by: Anne (in Reno) at August 19, 2007 11:05 PM

I just saw this movie on Saturday and I LOVED IT! Claire Danes irritates me too. And always not just the who crudup thing. But she was really good. Her accent WAS spot on and I loved the whole film.
I also noticed the continuity of it. Michelle Pfeiffer did the mirror trick and was without hair and then with it and perfectly smooth. Missed that one...
SPOILER:

Stephanie: I think that the reason that Victoria and Humphery were at the end was that the whole town of wall was invited. It looked like the aisles were divided between Wall and Stormhold folks. Plus remember the guard ran away towards the end and so the wall wasn't guarded at that point. I don't know I just assumed that Tristan invited his "friends" when he was made king. Oh and the ghostly brothers were HILARIOUS! I loved the part with the voodoo doll and the sword fight. It was great.

Posted by: lyricalcatt at August 20, 2007 10:04 AM

I hadn't read the book prior to seeing the movie (although I will be searching high and low for a copy now), so came into the movie knowing absolutely nothing about the story (except that I love Gaiman).
I am also very glad that I didn't read the review before seeing the movie, otherwise, De Niro's surprise would have been totally lost! I count that as a spoiler, bad Pajiba!
I was ready to dislike Claire Danes, because she's really not that great of an actress. Why can't they cast British unknowns? They can act circles around most of our American actresses and how great would it be to see a movie w/o the "homewrecking whore" weight to carry? But the girl won me over, her accent was spot on, and I found I loved the scenes where she glowed.
*sigh* I love movies like this. Too right it's the successor to Princess Bride! Can't wait to read the book and love the story even more.

Posted by: Stella at September 4, 2007 4:52 PM

I LOVED THIS MOVIE!!!! I went with my family and we left happy and heartwarmed! I can't wait to read the book (when I have time...great big english booklist to adhear too -_-). I was talking to my friend about it and she hated it! But she LOVED Superbad, so what could I expect from her? Anyways, my whole family agreed that Stardust is a classic and it's worth buying! (which is a big deal for my family!)

Posted by: ugh! at September 28, 2007 12:11 AM